Bombay High Court Fines Licensee Rs 5 Lakh For 'Harassing Landowners' Regarding Compensation For Land Acquired For Kohlapur Airport

Terming the petition as the “grossest abuse of the process of law”, a division bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna remarked, “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, from the aforesaid facts, we are of the clear opinion that the present proceeding is a grossest abuse of the process of law. We commenced the hearing of the proceedings at 11.00 am and this order was being dictated in the open Court upto 1.50 pm which is past the lunch time...We have no manner of doubt whatsoever and more particularly from the facts which are absolutely glaring that the petitioner having failed to obtain any orders in the Civil Suit against the respondents. The Suit as also the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner with the sole intention to cause harassment to respondent Nos.1 to 3 so that respondent Nos.1 to 3 do not receive the land acquisition compensation by negotiation. The Civil suit itself was filed with such intention asserting untenable rights, purporting to be tenancy rights which are also asserted in the present proceeding. On a scrutiny of such plea as argued by Mr. Ganbavle such rights even remotely are not seen to be available to the petitioner, who was a mere licencee”. 

The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, obtained the land of respondent nos. 1 to 3 on a licence under a Leave and License Agreement. As per a clause in the agreement, the petitioner would not claim any legal right of a tenancy or any other right whatsoever.

The license agreement expired in March 2020, however, the petitioner continued to occupy the land and did not hand over its possession to respondent nos. 1 to 3. Meanwhile, the land was acquired by the State for the purpose of Kolhapur Airport.

Subsequently, the petitioner firm asserted that it was a tenant of respondent nos.1 to 3. The petitioner filed a civil suit and prayed to declare that the license agreement came to end and that a relation of regular legal tenant has been formed between petitioner and respondent nos. 1 to 3. The petitioner prayed for permanent injunction, restraining the respondents from taking possession of the suit property. The petitioner arrayed the State authorities in the suit as well.

The Civil Court however rejected the petitioner's injunction application. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order and during its pendency, the petitioner approached the State authorities and continued to assert its rights over the land.

The petitioner approached the Sub–Divisional Officer claiming compensation, however the request was rejected. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The High Court said that the civil suit and the petition before it was filed only to cause harassment to respondent nos.1 to 3, so that they do not receive the land acquisition compensation by negotiation.

It noted that respondent no.1 was a widow and senior citizen, who was harassed by the petitioner and made to suffer multiple proceedings.

It noted that the civil suit was filed asserting untenable tenancy rights, though such rights were remotely not available to the petitioner, who was a mere licencee. It stated that despite not getting any relief in the Civil Court, the petitioner approached the High Court on similar untenable contentions.

“What has disturbed us more is the fact that once the litigant i.e. petitioner had failed before Civil Court on all counts, when the injunction application by an exhaustive order came to be rejected, nonetheless, the petitioner is persisting to urge similar untenable contentions before this Court," it said.

The Court further remarked that the Additional Collector also “played at the hands of the petitioner” when he sent a letter to respondent nos.1 to 3, stating that that as the suit proceedings was pending, further proceedings on the land acquisition could not be taken.

The Court observed that for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, the litigant must approach the court with clean hands. Here, the Court stated that the petitioner approached the Court for personal gains, without any legal rights against respondent nos. 1 to 3. It said:

“Certainly, the law would not permit the jurisdiction of the High Court to be abused in such manner and that too for personal gains in the absence of a semblance of legal right not being shown by the petitioner, more particularly, when effectively relief as prayed for, is infact against the private respondents.”

The Court remarked that the petitioner consciously wasted the Court's time and remarked that the abuse of the process of law could not be tolerated. Observing that there is trend of litigants asserting frivolous pleas, the Court said, “The litigants who can afford to abuse the process of law on the strength of resources available to them to litigate, certainly would be an aspect which cannot be overlooked by the Court in dismissing such proceedings with exemplary costs.”

Dismissing the petition the high court imposed an "exemplary cost" of Rs. 5 lakh on the petitioner, to be paid to respondent nos.1 to 3. It stated that if the amount is not paid, the same shall be recovered as land revenue by attaching the petitioner's assets including the personal properties of the partners.

Before parting the high court underscored, "If we were not to pass aforesaid orders, we would have failed in our duty in preserving and maintaining the solemnity and purity of the process of law from being absued by the litigants like the petitioner".